Argentinian Never-Were Warship Designs and Proposals

[Mera A Firewing]

Something I've recently thought about is that, due to the increase in displacement, the new battleship may require more power.
For reference, the 1914 battleship Agincourt had a normal displacement of 27,500 long tons (and a maximum of 30,900 long tons), with a power of 40,100 horsepower and 4 propellers and a speed of 22.4 knots. And the Rivadavia battleships of 1914/15 had a normal displacement of 28,000 long tons (and a maximum of 32,000 long tons), with a power of 40,900 horsepower and 3 propellers and a speed of 22.6 knots.
This new vessel should surely have the same speed, but as it increases its size and displacement (normally around 30,000 long tons), then it would need to generate more power. What I would suggest is adding a fourth engine and a fourth propeller, to reach a power of around 50,000 horsepower and a speed greater than 22.5 knots. And also enlarge the funnels a little. For more precise numbers, Springsharp or similar calculators are required (which I don't use unfortunately).

Okay.

 

[COLDOWN]

Well I just did a publication on facebook, so I wanted to share the general idea here too.

[En] “Design No. 1124”. Cruisers for Argentina and Venezuela



On this occasion I wanted to show you the Vickers-Armstrong cruiser “Design No. 1124” that was offered to the Argentine Navy in 1947.
Unfortunately Norman Friedman's writing in “British Cruisers. Two World Wars and After” and David Murfin’s interpretation in “Directory of British Cruiser Designs. 1860-1960” have caused readers to fall into a confusion in which historical and technical details of the potential ships resulting from the Vickers-Armstrong negotiations with the Argentine and Venezuelan Navies are mixed.
Below I will try to contribute to the understanding of the cruiser “Design No. 1124”.

This “stock” design belongs to a set that was presented around April 1947 for the new Argentine Naval Plan that included aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and other ships, as well as the standardization of weapons and equipment.
“Design No. 1124” was a large light cruiser, similar to the North American Brooklyn class, but with more modern features and equipment. The maximum displacement is 13,700 long tons, its maximum power is 80,000 horsepower and its maximum speed is 30.5 knots. The main armament is twelve 152mm and the secondary armament is twelve 120mm. The heavy machine guns are 40mm and the light ones are 20mm. The belt protection is 94 millimeters and the deck is 50 millimeters. Radar, fire target and other equipment would combine American and British technologies.

Friedman's description of the alleged weaponry is as follows:

• Main armament: 12 (4x3) 152mm (6 inches) Vickers-Armstrong Mark XIII type in Mark XXIV mounting.
• Secondary armament: 12 (6x2) 120mm (4.7 inches) Bofors.
• Anti-aircraft weapons: 8 (4x2) 40mm Bofors type in Mark V mounting and 12 (6x2) 20mm Oerlikon type.

From complementary sources (such as “Warship 1996”) we learn that:

• Main armament: supposedly the RP 10 mount, with an elevation of 70 degrees for anti-aircraft capability, 50.8 kilogram projectiles and a rate of fire of 6 to 8 rounds per minute.
• Secondary armament: supposedly the Bofors Model 1942, with an elevation of 80 degrees for anti-aircraft capacity, 23.5 kilogram projectiles and a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute.
• Anti-aircraft weapons: supposedly the RP 50 and the Boffin.

The certainties of the armament are not properly stated, as we can understand this from the “stock” condition of this offer. However, in Friedman's publication the scheme presented here is called interchangeably “Design No. 1124” and “Design No. 1124A”, which is an error that carried over to Murfin's publication as well. And that other publishers, like the undersigned author of posts on the “Reporte de Batalla” blog, have reproduced.

Because other researchers have brought us the plans of the “1124A” and “1124B” (respectively with two internal variants given by the distribution and protection of the machinery), both offered to the Argentine Navy, we can verify that the characteristics and schemes Both designs are similar, but are not identical to the “1124”.
I repeat, "1124", "1124A" and "1124B" are not the same Design.

As at this moment I want to emphasize the “Design No. 1124” only, then I do not want to go into the particularities of the “1124A” and “1124B”, although I would like to make some comparisons to the general characteristics:

• Dimensions: The “1124” with a maximum length of 185 meters (606 feet) and a maximum beam of 20 meters (65 feet) is smaller than the “1124A” and “1124B”, in any of its variants. (respectively with a maximum difference of 7 and 1 meters).
• Displacement: The “1124” with a maximum displacement of 13,700 long tons is lighter compared to the “1124A” and “1124B”, in any of its variants (by 800 to 1,500 long tons).
• Mobility: The “1124” with a power of 80,000 horsepower and a speed of 30.5 knots has a lower circulation capacity compared to the “1124A” and “1124B”, in any of its variants (respectively by 20,000 and 1.5 knots).
• Protection: The “1124” with a belt protection of 94 millimeters and the deck of 50 millimeters has a slightly lower defense compared to the “1124A” and “1124B”, in any of its variants (in the first case due to 6 millimeters).
• Main armament: The “1124” with 12 (4x3) 152mm (6 inches) has the same number of cannons. But both the “1124A” and the “1124B” are of the Vickers-Armstrong Mark W type in dual-purpose mounts, with an elevation of 70 degrees for anti-aircraft capacity, 45.4 kilogram projectiles and a rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute (these are the same cannons as the cruiser “La Argentina”, now improved for anti-aircraft capacity and with a greater rate of fire).
• Secondary armament: The “1124” with 12 (6x2) 120mm (4.7 inches) has the same number of cannons. But in the “1124A” it is the Vickers-Armstrong Mark IX* type in dual-purpose mounts, with an elevation of 80 degrees for anti-aircraft capacity, 22.7 kilogram projectiles and a rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute ( They are the same cannons as the “Buenos Aires” destroyers, now improved for anti-aircraft capacity and with a greater rate of fire). And but in the “1124B” it is 20 (10x2) 88mm type Vickers-Armstrong “Design 44,690” in dual-purpose mounts, with an elevation of 80 degrees for anti-aircraft capability (they would have been a novelty).
• Anti-aircraft weapons: The “1124” with 8 (4x2) 40mm Bofors type and 12 (6x2) 20mm Oerlikon type has a lower general anti-aircraft capacity. The “1124A” has 14 (4x2+6x1) 40mm Bofors type. And the “1124B” has 6 (6x1) 40mm Bofors type, which combine at 88mm.

The following is worth mentioning in a separate paragraph. In the postwar period, Argentina acquired weapons from the Bofors company (Sweden) (highlighting the 105mm/41cs and 40mm/56cs dual-purpose anti-aircraft guns) and planned unsuccessful tenders (as the Rivadavia modernizations). It would be interesting to confirm Friedman's mention that the Bofors 120mm cannons could have come from those lands as well, in the event that the acquisition of the “Design 1124” had been completed, but at the moment no documents have been found in the Argentine archives.

So, in short, the negotiations with Argentina were not simple nor did they cover a few cruisers designs. Unfortunately, the confusion between the designs threatens the dissemination of their particularities. And this also affects Venezuela, since Murfin has called the “287/21/62” negotiated almost a decade after the Argentines as “1124”.
Regards

PS 1: A more detailed publication https://reportedebatalla.wordpress....ceros-diseno-1124-para-argentina-y-venezuela/

PS 2: If anyone informed believes that I have noted wrong any information, do not hesitate to comment to check it.

 

[00-PureEvil-00]

I have a question for the resident expert on South American navies @COLDOWN

Several months ago, Lesta (the guys who now run Russian offshoot of WoWS game) introduced a premium Pan-American battleship. And it's description has the following passage:
During the first years after World War I, Latin American countries considered the possibility of strengthening their navies: [B]Brazil had almost approved a plan of building a fleet with total displacement of 151000 tons, Chile planned to purchase several battleships and cruisers from England, and Argentine had allocated 75 million golden peso to naval construction program[/B].

The question is: how much of this is true? And if it is, can you perhaps provide any extra info on this topic?

 

[Dilandu]

The question is: how much of this is true? And if it is, can you perhaps provide any extra info on this topic?

Let's just say that every "historical" bit from Lesta should be taken with at least 1 kg of salt...

 

[00-PureEvil-00]

During the first years after World War I, Latin American countries considered the possibility of strengthening their navies: [B]Brazil had almost approved a plan of building a fleet with total displacement of 151000 tons, Chile planned to purchase several battleships and cruisers from England, and Argentine had allocated 75 million golden peso to naval construction program[/B].

The question is: how much of this is true? And if it is, can you perhaps provide any extra info on this topic?

Well, after some research of my own, I can say that this particular "historical bit from Lesta" is mostly true.
I don't quite remember where I've found this mention, but 75 million peso was the cost of Argentinian 1926 program (the one that spawned 25 de Mayo-class cruisers). Concerning Brasil, another thread has a list of Brazilian naval expansion program proposals — none of them actually hits 151k tons of total displacement, but that one proposal from 1923 actually  exceeds that (four battleships 35k tons each, plus cruisers, destroyers and submarines, totaling 222000 tons), so this part can be considered confirmed as well. And Chile — well, they  did purchase  Latorre back and Vickers  did offer them some cruisers, but whether Chileans planned to acquire more than that, I currently don't know.

Let's just say that every "historical" bit from Lesta should be taken with at least 1 kg of salt...

Spoiler: A little rant about WoWS

To be fair, since WG/Lesta rewrote all in-game historical descriptions (apart from Soviet submarines, for some reason, and some "special" clones) year or two ago — these descriptions became mostly true to historical facts, apart from very rare glaring errors like calling HMS Canada (ex-Latorre) a Canadian battleship (it's stated in Yukon''s description, if you're curious). And they are now somewhat more honest about fake ships.
But of course, this doesn't remedy the fact that these descriptions often don't exactly relate to the ships they're attached to, and even more often they contradict the "Design Year" assigned to a ship. A good example is  Dalarna, a European super-destroyer which is allegedly based on 1947 leader design, but her model is obviously just a stretched  Halland and her stated "Design Year" is 1953.

 

[COLDOWN]

I have a question for the resident expert on South American navies @COLDOWN

Several months ago, Lesta (the guys who now run Russian offshoot of WoWS game) introduced a premium Pan-American battleship. And it's description has the following passage:
During the first years after World War I, Latin American countries considered the possibility of strengthening their navies: [B]Brazil had almost approved a plan of building a fleet with total displacement of 151000 tons, Chile planned to purchase several battleships and cruisers from England, and Argentine had allocated 75 million golden peso to naval construction program[/B].

The question is: how much of this is true? And if it is, can you perhaps provide any extra info on this topic?

Well, after some research of my own, I can say that this particular "historical bit from Lesta" is mostly true.
I don't quite remember where I've found this mention, but 75 million peso was the cost of Argentinian 1926 program (the one that spawned 25 de Mayo-class cruisers). Concerning Brasil, another thread has a list of Brazilian naval expansion program proposals — none of them actually hits 151k tons of total displacement, but that one proposal from 1923 actually  exceeds that (four battleships 35k tons each, plus cruisers, destroyers and submarines, totaling 222000 tons), so this part can be considered confirmed as well. And Chile — well, they  did purchase  Latorre back and Vickers  did offer them some cruisers, but whether Chileans planned to acquire more than that, I currently don't know.

Spoiler: A little rant about WoWS

To be fair, since WG/Lesta rewrote all in-game historical descriptions (apart from Soviet submarines, for some reason, and some "special" clones) year or two ago — these descriptions became mostly true to historical facts, apart from very rare glaring errors like calling HMS Canada (ex-Latorre) a Canadian battleship (it's stated in Yukon''s description, if you're curious). And they are now somewhat more honest about fake ships.
But of course, this doesn't remedy the fact that these descriptions often don't exactly relate to the ships they're attached to, and even more often they contradict the "Design Year" assigned to a ship. A good example is  Dalarna, a European super-destroyer which is allegedly based on 1947 leader design, but her model is obviously just a stretched  Halland and her stated "Design Year" is 1953.

You put me in an intellectual bind.
I think there are two key issues:
- The research and development offices of Wargaming and Lesta are small (even combined). Due to their budget and operational capacity, they restrict obtaining information from Anglo-Saxon or Ru-Soviet publications, instead of making an effort in the local sources of the nations they try to represent in their games. Thus, the technical and historical information on the content that is considered as potential to be implemented in their games (such as researchable or collectible vehicles of the Panam region) is of minimal quantities and limited diversity. And, faced with such a limited range of options, they decide to simply make vehicle inventions with already made designs that do not represent the spirit/flavor/technology of Panam nations at certain times.
- The Pan-American (Latin American or even Ibero-American) market is not self-sustaining. This region provides less purchasing power per capita than any other in the world, but at the same time has a population of players that is not inconsiderable for the North American server and, far away, for the European one. We poor Latin Americans are attractive because of the number of users and the activity (we play a lot) we provide, so that the services identified as Pan-American (such as trees, branches, researchable or collectible vehicles) are not for our region, but for the rest of the world.
Regarding the previous issues are, for example, that Lesta offers a battleship "Patagonia" and Wargaming offers a battleship "Los Andes" with names that violates the Argentine ship naming law and are not related to the technology we wanted in the mentioned eras or synopsis of these ships. Another example, in this case regarding the importance of the market, is that today the region with the highest population and power per capita is China and the marketing office is oriented there. The future is there. Even when this country (or even the region, excluding Japan) has had less historical naval relevance within the period covered by the game.

Honestly, everything they write is a lie or a mix of real and fictitious features. As you mentioned, both companies use textual details of ideas or budgets of Pan-American countries to invent contexts or to justify fictitious vehicles. It seems that there is no hired historian to tell them: "that amount of money was not destined for a certain type of ship", "this law is two decades after the acquisition of the ships that we want to implement" and so on. There are so maaany details wrong.
An example of lack of research is that Argentina had secret laws for the acquisition of battleships during and after the Second World War and that never appears in the descriptions of these companies, because they have not investigated (for those more interested, I tell you that they are amounts that would approximate a battleship with a base of 35,000 tons).
An example of lack of creativity is with the Chilean Vanguard (Valparaiso), receives a copy-paste ship from the British side, when the secondary battery could have been modified to assimilate it to Chilean technology (for example implementing 102/62 cannons). Another case is that the Agincourt is played like Pan American playability and that, for its part, the Rio de Janeiro has British gameplay, because Wows did not want to implement the Brazilian and when they did, their style had already been used in the twin. And so many things.
Due to the combination of laziness + incapacity and profitability, these companies do not carry out a process of research or development of the naval history of each Pan-American country to then provide services with historicity. They need to implement a new type of service/content, they put a certain balance and gimmick on it and a patch that says Panam and that's it.
Whenever I could, I collaborated with the company to provide details, but it seems that today history is not profitable hahaha.

On the other hand, we are not sovereigns or creditors in these companies. We can criticize their services, but the final implementation decisions are up to them. If they want to commit suicide because of a lack of historicity or respect for their communities, that's their problem.

Regards

PS: Sorry for the delay, but the last month has been chaotic and I haven't even been talking to friends or family.

 

[00-PureEvil-00]

On an unrelated note...

Buy or modernize? That is the question!

In the late 1950s, there were many proposals to repower the Argentine fleet, with the lowest possible costs. These options included buying new or used ships or modernizing existing ones. Of this last case I will mention three proposals:
1- Replacement of the anti-aircraft artillery of the Belgrano and Nueve de Julio cruisers.
2- Conversion of the Cervantes and Mendoza classes from gun destroyers to anti-submarine frigates
3- Reconversion of the Buenos Airesos class from torpedo destroyers to leading destroyers

1- Replacement of the anti-aircraft artillery of the Belgrano and Nueve de Julio cruisers, changing to models 127/25 for 125/38.
(W.I.P.).

Brooklyn Argentino, brought to you by some bad kitbashing (or should it be "Shipbucket-bashing"? ).
The first version is "true to the text": just a Shipbucket drawing of ARA General Belgrano, with 127-mm/38 single mounts slapped in place of 127-mm/25s. I've chosen Mark 30 enclosed mountings from  Fletcher-class, because, well, in late 50s these will be pretty much the only 127-mm/38 singles avialable (and twins would require too much work to install).
Ah, and she also has new radars which were installed in early 60's IRL.

And the second one is a "what-if" version with further improved AA defence, with quadruple Bofors guns replaced by twin 76-mm/50 Mark 33's, and the remaining Bofors and Oerlicon guns replaced by eleven single 40-mm/70 Bofors Model 1948 (one on the bow, six replacing old twin Boforses, and four on the aft deckhouse).

Sorry in advance for any screwups like scales being wrong or artifacts from kitbashing, my artistic skill is pretty much nonexistent